Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 29th September, 1949—met at Half past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Pay Offices (National Service Men)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men called up for service under the National Service Acts are at present employed in pay offices; and how many civilians have been replaced by them in these offices.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): It is not the practice to make public the numbers of soldiers engaged on particular duties and it is not possible to say how many civilians have been directly replaced by the employment of National Service men in pay offices. It can, however, be said that some 2,500 more civilians or regular soldiers would at present be needed in these offices in the United Kingdom if National Service men were not used.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I take it that that answer means that in fact in a certain number of cases the right hon. Gentleman has replaced civilians by men called up under the National Service Acts, and is not this attempt to obtain cheap labour a gross abuse of the purpose of the National Service Acts?

Mr. Shinwell: I think not. This is part of the training of some of the National Service men. We may require these men on these duties in the event of an emergency, and obviously they must have preparatory training.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Is not it clear that the right hon. Gentleman would not require National Service men for these duties if he had permanent or temporary civil servants doing them? May I ask

him again to assure the House that the National Service system is not being abused in the way in which his first answer indicated?

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir, I am quite satisfied that there is no abuse, and I should like to tell the hon. Member that the National Service men in the Pay Corps do receive a certain amount of military training.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to give notice that, in view of the admission of the right hon. Gentleman as to the use which he is making of National Service men, I shall—if the Government last long enough—raise the matter again.

Mr. Shinwell: We shall last long enough.

Married Quarters, Suez Canal Zone

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War how many married families, officers and other ranks, respectively, are accommodated in War Department quarters in the Suez Canal Zone; and how many live in private quarters.

Mr. Shinwell: Three hundred and sixty-six married officers' families and 484 married other ranks' families are accommodated in War Department quarters in the Suez Canal Zone. The numbers living in private quarters are 444 and 536, respectively.

Mr. Low: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about providing more War Department quarters so that these men and their families can be properly accommodated?

Mr. Shinwell: We are doing as much as we possibly can in the circumstances. We are putting up temporary quarters which perhaps are not entirely satisfactory, but which are adequate for our purposes at the moment; and we are stepping up the provision of married quarters in all theatres as fast as we can, but it is a long-term job.

Expedition, Aqaba (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what has been the total cost of the expedition to Aqaba.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his similar Question on 26th April last to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable time has elapsed since April last and that there is need for national economy; further, what proposals has he in mind for reducing this expenditure?

Mr. Shinwell: This was a quite specific Question about the total cost of a particular expedition, and I have told the hon. Member that I have nothing to add to what I told him on a previous occasion.

War Department Property (Repairs)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of repairs to billets and barracks are at present carried out by Royal Engineers' services; and what proportion by civilian contract.

Mr. Shinwell: Approximately two-thirds of the repairs to War Department accommodation, installations and roads are carried out by Royal Engineers' services using directly employed labour as against approximately one-third by civilian contract.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any change of policy in this matter in recent months and, if so, what is the reason for the change?

Mr. Shinwell: We are considering whether it is possible to reduce the amount of directly employed labour though obviously there are a number of duties which the Royal Engineers have to perform.

DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (CLAIMS)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will give further consideration to extending the time in which claims for loss of development value can be made.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar Question on 31st May last by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).

Mr. Marshall: May I ask the Minister whether in cases where there has only been a matter of a few days' delay, arising out of the heavy rush of work at that time, he will—even in those cases—reconsider this matter?

Mr. Silkin: I am sorry but I have no power to grant any latitude, apart from making an entirely new order.

Colonel Dower: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of particulars which are asked for and which have to be sent in is very large and that in a few months' time all these claims and other charges may be so much waste paper?

Mr. Stokes: What is the legal position of a person who does not listen to the wireless and does not read the Press and who then finds himself dispossessed? What happens?

Mr. Silkin: I am afraid that he is a very ignorant man.

Mr. Stokes: No. Mr. Speaker, with great respect, does my right hon. Friend know that I never listen to the wireless and rarely read the Press?

Mr. Silkin: My answer still holds good.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Following upon that question, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what happens to the person who believes that this is a matter for the local authority?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the aggregate amounts of claims for loss of development rights in respect of properties in England and Wales and in Scotland respectively, submitted by 30th June, 1949.

Mr. Silkin: Claimants were not required to state the amount claimed in formulating their claims and the majority have not done so. The information desired is therefore not available.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Minister give the House any information about the total of the claims in respect of which amounts have been formulated?

Mr. Silkin: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Sickness and Disablement (Statistics)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that under the approved society system societies arranged statistical data showing periodically the incidence of sickness and disablement among their membership, separating males and females for the purpose; and if he will give similar details showing any disparity between the statistics under the old and the new system.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Arrangements have been made to collect and publish periodically comprehensive statistics of sickness experience under the National Insurance Acts. But comparison with the figures obtained under the old system will not be possible as detailed statistics were only available in respect of a few approved societies.

Local Advisory Committees

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of National Insurance how the local advisory committees he is setting up under the National Insurance Act, under Section 42 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, will be constituted; and whether old age pensioners will have the opportunity of being represented on them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Committees will consist of about 20 members, of whom six will represent employers and six employees. There will be two or three representatives 'of local authorities and one or two of friendly societies. These will constitute nucleus committees and will be asked to select four or five persons with suitable local knowledge to complete the full committee. Any local old age pensioners' association or other organisation who wants to put forward names for consideration by a particular local committee should forward them, with particulars of their qualifications, to the appropriate regional controller of the Ministry.

Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend say how the local organisation will get to know if this is the method to be adopted for the appointment of the advisory committees?

Mr. Griffiths: We shall do our best to make this as widely known as possible.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that employers and trade unions are to be represented, is it not desirable that the old folks' organisations should have representation as organisations because they will be very much affected by the work of these committees?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that we have provided in the best way for representation on these committees and I hone that the associations will send forward names to the regional controllers.

Unemployment Benefit

Major Bruce: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will state the total amount of unemployment benefits disbursed in the year 1938; give an estimate of what the disbursements would have been in 1938 had the current rates of benefit been then in force; and the total benefits granted in respect of unemployment in the year ended 5th July, 1949.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The total amount of unemployment benefit paid in the year 1938 was £52,400,000. It is estimated that if the current rates of unemployment benefit and family allowances had then been in force the disbursements would have been rather less than £90 million. The total amount of unemployment benefit paid in the year ended 2nd July, 1949, was approximately £21,500,000, including £4,900,000 in respect of extended benefit under Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, 1946.

Major Bruce: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that although the payments for the individual unemployed person have gone up, the total expenditure has gone down, and does not he agree that this is the finest way of economising in the use of the taxpayers' money?

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the nation will note the figures, for they show the success of the policy of full employment.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give the figures showing the purchasing power of the pound in 1938 and 1945?

Mr. Griffiths: That is not a question for me to answer.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman send a special message to the United States of America to thank them for this policy which they have helped to make so successful?

Mr. Griffiths: These payments are made from money which we provide in this country.

Mr. Piratin: Has not the Minister made out a good case for an increase in unemployment benefit?

Sickness Claims

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps are being taken to supervise sickness claims and to prevent abuse of the provisions of the insurance and health services.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The steps taken to supervise sickness benefit claims under the National Insurance Act are broadly the same as those followed by the approved societies under the old National Health Insurance scheme, namely, careful scrutiny of claims, sick visiting in selected cases and the use of the regional medical service of the Health Departments to obtain second medical opinions in cases of doubt. Responsibility for the administration of the Health Services rests, of course, with my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Sir W. Smithers: What is the good of referring to old methods? Is it not a fact that under the policy of Socialism the administration has completely broken down, as I warned the right hon. Gentleman on 2nd November, 1944, that it would?

Mr. Griffiths: The administration is working very well.

Funds

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance what is the present position of the original insurance funds taken over by the terms of the National Insurance Act; and how much of them has been applied to extraneous purposes.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 1st February last, a copy of which I am sending him. The position as stated then remains unchanged.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister give an assurance that none of these funds has been used to implement Socialist theories or to uphold tottering Socialist policy; and will he say how much of this money is invested in "Dalton two-and-a-halfs"?

Mr. Griffiths: The position is that so far the scheme is working under its own steam and it has not been necessary to touch a single penny of the money we took over in 1948.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Labour Control

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour what reductions he proposes in labour control.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I hope shortly to make a statement about the Government's intentions with regard to labour controls.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister give an assurance now that there will be no increase in control?

Mr. Isaacs: I can add nothing to the answer I have already given.

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Labour how many people have been directed to work since the coming into force of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1947.

Mr. Isaacs: Nineteen men and 10 women since 6th October, 1947, the date of coming into force of the Control of Engagement Order, 1947. In addition, directions have been given since that date to 581 men to remain in their normal employment in agriculture or coal mining.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in many hundreds of cases, the mere threat of direction has the same effect?

Mr. Isaacs: There is no threat of direction.

Mr. Blackburn: Has not the Minister given an undertaking to all hon. Members of the House that he will personally investigate any cases of victimisation due to the threat of the use of this power, and has the Minister had a single case of victimisation which has been proved?

Mr. Isaacs: The only case was in the early days of the scheme, when one of the exchange managers made a mistake and we promptly put it right.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the Minister give an undertaking that on no occasion in the past or in the future has the threat been used or will be used?

Mr. Isaacs: I can give that undertaking. We have never threatened anybody.

Mr. Mellish: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that direction into labour is a new thing in this country, and that in the past it was the policy to direct people out of labour?

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received advocating a more vigorous enforcement of his powers of direction of labour; what reply he has given to such representations; and whether any change in policy is contemplated.

Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the first part of the question is "None, Sir," and the second part, therefore, does not arise. As I have already informed the House I hope shortly to make a statement about the Government's intentions.

Mr. Blackburn: Can the Minister indicate how it has arisen that responsible newspapers have printed rumours, which they say were well authenticated, to the effect that the trade union movement has asked him to increase these powers?

Mr. Isaacs: No such thing has happened, but we are accustomed to rumours in the newspapers. I can say that I have never had a single complaint from the trade unions about the operation of this particular power.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Has not the right hon. Gentleman observed the statement of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the effect that, in the event of his party being returned to power, the Transitional Powers Act will be replaced by a permanent Act in which Regulation 58A will become a permanent part of our law, so that an Order for the direction of labour can then be made without this House having the power to alter one word of it?

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement which has just

been referred to was to the effect that the particular Act would be passed in an amended form?

Mr. Strauss: May I say that I should still prefer an answer from the Treasury Bench to one given by an aspirant?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me if I noticed that statement. I have noticed that statement.

Scotland

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of the registered male unemployed in Scotland is over 40 years of age; and what plans he has specially in view to deal with this class of persons.

Mr. Isaacs: At 13th June, 1949, the latest date for which details are available, 51 per cent. of the men registered as unemployed were over 40 years of age. The majority of the men concerned are in the Development Areas, and will benefit from the special efforts being made under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, to increase the level of employment in such areas. In the rest of Scotland also many new industries are being set up. Apart from this, Appointments offices and employment exchanges take special pains to assist men over 40 who find it difficult to obtain employment, and local employment committees in the West of Scotland have been specially invited to consider this problem.

Departmental Advertising

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Labour what is the cost of advertising for labour for his Department in 1947, 1948 and 1949.

Mr. Isaacs: The expenditure incurred by my Department on advertising for labour, including the estimated cost of administrative staff, is approximately as follows: 1947, £7,000; 1948, £9,000; 1949 (January-July), £8,000.

Sir W. Darling: Is the Minister satisfied that a Department which is organised for the provision of labour should itself have to resort to other methods to secure it? Is it not a Department organised to secure its own labour?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir; this is indeed part of the organisation. If an employer comes along and wants a certain class of


worker and we have not got that class of worker on our registers, we advertise to let the people know that the jobs are going.

Sir W. Darling: May I take it that it is a fact that the daily Press is more useful in securing labour than the Ministry's own Department?

Mr. Isaacs: Not in the least. The daily Press is often used as an adjunct to my Department.

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Labour why it is necessary for his Department to advertise for females between 15 and 45 when the vacancies of all Ministry of Labour offices and officers are at his disposal for such recruiting of staffs.

Mr. Isaacs: The advertisements are being issued on behalf of the Treasury and Civil Service Commission. Their purpose is to call the attention of women and girls—whether they are registered at employment exchanges or not—to new opportunities for shorthand-typists and typists to secure permanent posts in the Civil Service in London.

Sir W. Darling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman take a very poor view of his own Department having to engage in advertising for girls to work in his Department when he has the resource of registering them?

Mr. Isaacs: The answer is the same as that which I have given to a previous Question. We have a number of young people leaving school who do not register at the exchanges; therefore, we advertise to let them know that these jobs are going.

Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that people only apply to the employment exchanges when they are out of work, and that these advertisements are intended for those people who want a better kind of job?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not put the answer better than the hon. Gentleman has done.

Rugby

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in Rugby at a recent convenient date.

Mr. Isaacs: Sixteen males and 23 females at 12th September.

Hosiery Company, Dagenham (Dispute)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour what is the cause of the dispute at the Windsor Hosiery Company, Dagenham; and what action his Department has taken to try and get it settled.

Mr. Isaacs: The dispute arose out of a request by the union for a meeting to discuss wages and conditions of employment. Officers of my Department have been in close touch with the parties, and a further meeting between an official of the union and a representative of the firm is taking place today.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour why applicants at the local employment exchange have been sent to the Windsor Hosiery Company's works when an officially recognised strike is in progress.

Mr. Isaacs: Submissions to these vacancies were made in accordance with the established practice of the Employment Service which maintains strict impartiality towards trade disputes. Vacancies notified by an employer which are affected by a trade dispute are brought to the notice of suitable applicants, but in every case the applicants are warned of the existence of the dispute. No person is prejudiced in any way if he is unwilling to accept a vacancy because a trade dispute affecting that vacancy exists.

Mr. Parker: Will the Minister look into the complaint made by officials of the union about the way in which the local employment exchange behaved in this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: Most certainly, if my hon. Friend brings the matter to my notice.

Mr. Osborne: Could the Minister say how many people are involved in this strike? Will he also make it clear that the hosiery trade has for many years been free from strikes and has had good relations with the trade unions?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The number of persons involved is about 125. I would like to endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the good relations which have existed in this industry. This dispute


really arose because the employers did not give a reply for some eight or nine weeks to a question whether they would meet the union or not, and then did not give a definite date, with the result that the workers came out. I hope we shall get back to the industry's old position.

Shipyard Workers

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many shipyard workers were unemployed in the Tyneside area at the latest available date; and what are the prospects of them obtaining work in their trade;
(2) how many ship repair workers were unemployed in the Port of London area at the latest available date; whether other work has been offered them; and what are their prospects of work in their industry.

Mr. Isaacs: The latest official figures of insured workers in the shipyards registered as unemployed relate to 12th September and are as follow: Port of London area, 344; Tyneside (including Blyth), 1,276.
As regards the Port of London, there is no reason to expect an appreciable increase in the number unemployed, but as regards the Tyneside, a considerable number of workers have recently been paid off. Special efforts are being made to find suitable employment for these men and it seems likely that most of the skilled men can be found such employment in the near future.

Mr. Piratin: Does the Minister mean by that reply that there actually are plans for more work going to the shipyards of the north-east? Will he bear in mind the fact that many orders have been going abroad, including Germany, where labour is cheaper, and will he not go into the whole question again?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot very well comment on the second part of the supplementary question, because I have not given it special consideration. As to the first part, it is correct that efforts are being made, and I think will be successful, to get other work taken into the Tyneside area. So far as London is concerned, the number of unemployed has not added one to our unemployment figures.

Sir Ian Fraser: Will the Minister inquire whether there are not many scores of thousands of railway trucks and wagons which cannot at present be repaired because the workshops are full up? Is this not very suitable work for certain kinds of dockyards?

Mr. Isaacs: It depends on particular circumstances, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that whatever work can be sent there to be done will be sent.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will my right hon. Friend keep his eye on the Clyde on this question, because there is a good deal of unemployment among those who are engaged on repair work, which is now pretty well used up? Will he keep his eye on this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Coahniners (Recruitment)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the declining manpower, what special steps he is taking to recruit more workers to the coalmining industry.

Mr. Isaacs: Coalmining continues to have first call on all available manpower. Recruitment publicity continues and coalmining employment is offered to all suitable unemployed men.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that the manpower in the coalmining industry is still 65,000 less than it was 10 years ago, and that, in view of this fact, the miners are to be congratulated on the present output? Will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the vacancies which now exist in each coalfield?

Mr. Isaacs: I will not give an undertaking on the second point until I have considered it. As to the first point, it is true, of course, that production is being maintained, but there has been a good deal of mechanisation in the industry which leads to a reduction in manpower.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Minister bear in mind in this connection that many pits are being closed as well?

Mr. Hollis: Will the Minister explain exactly what he means by the phrase "first call" which he used in his answer.

Mr. Scollan: The one before the second.

Mr. Isaacs: It means that out of the list of priority jobs offered to men going to the employment exchange coalmining is the first job offered to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

School Dental Service

Colonel Comme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many schoolchildren in Scotland, during the school year ended 31st July, 1949, were treated by school dental officers; and of that number, how many were treated for fillings, extractions and other dental operations, respectively;
(2) how many children were on the school registers in Scotland during the school year ended 31st July, 1949; how many were inspected by school dental officers; and how many were recorded as requiring treatment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Of some 780,000 children on the registers during the school year ending in July, 1949, over 268,000 were inspected by school dental officers. Of these 188,000 were recorded as requiring treatment, which was provided for 136,000 children. I will circulate more detailed figures, with an analysis of the treatment, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


SCHOOL DENTAL SERVICE IN SCOTLAND, 1948–49


Number of children on registers
781,294


Number of children inspected
268,290*


Number requiring treatment
188,007*


Number receiving treatment
136,409


Number of fillings
134,371


Number of extractions
176,887


Number of other operations (scaling, root treatment, etc.)
119,929


* Provisional.

Outhouses, Coastal Villages

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will authorise the erection of outhouses for council tenants in coastal villages where the provision of shelter for line baiting and of storage facilities for fishing gear is essential.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir. I am prepared to consider any plans submitted by local authorities in which provision is made for special accommodation for fishermen's gear. I have already agreed to this in several cases.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Why should there be this long delay? Is the Minister aware that a great many of the Cruden houses and others erected long ago by county councils have no outhouses because they are prevented from putting them up by his own Department of Health and that, as a consequence, the fishermen are baiting their gear in the houses themselves?

Mr. Woodburn: I think the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. For instance, in his own constituency where the county council have put forward these propositions, my Department have agreed to them. I would like the hon. Gentleman to give me details of any contrary decision.

Ploughing Subsidy

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider revising the date under which the ploughing subsidy is payable in the North of Scotland, having regard to the fact that much of this work is done in the early spring.

Mr. Woodburn: As the date, which is applicable over the whole country, was fixed by statute, I have no power to revise it.

Mr. Spence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the fact that this season the Scottish farmer has to decide whether he will use his grazing to the full or whether he will have to cut it up in order to get the ploughing subsidy; and, further, swill the Minister receive representations on this matter with a view to reconsidering it?

Mr. Woodburn: We are always prepared to consider any matter, but I must point out that the Scottish farmer received notice in August last year that the ploughing subsidy would come to an end this year, and he had to make his provisions accordingly. We will consider the matter, but I cannot hold out any great hopes.

Mr. Snadden: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is in the national interest that grass should be grazed for


as long as possible, and that the better the grass the longer the grazing? Does not this decision penalise efficiency and run counter to his own exhortations?

Mr. Woodburn: This has been an exceptional year and one cannot always budget for exceptional years. Moreover, the arrangements for this are always taken into account when settling other prices, and, therefore, what the farmer loses on the swings he gains on the roundabouts. In other words, he gets the price for his cattle if he keeps grazing them.

Mr. McGovern: Has the Minister received any representations from the Opposition to cut out these ploughing subsidies in the interest of economy?

Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Minister says that the whole country is subject to this Order under statute. That being so, is it not a perfect example of how stupid it is to treat the country as one unit?

Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir. It may surprise the hon. and gallant Gentleman to learn that quite a lot of grass grows in England.

Empty Houses (Local Authorities' Powers)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he is curtailing the powers of local authorities to requisition empty houses.

Mr. Woodburn: Local authorities now have powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1949, to acquire and improve premises with Exchequer assistance, and I am satisfied that, they should normally rely on these powers rather than on requisitioning powers, which in any event are due to expire in the near future.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while local authorities have power to requisition premises, the power to requisition empty single houses—which is the point in question—is now being withdrawn from them, a fact which will create severe hardship in industrial districts in Glasgow?

Mr. Woodburn: The point is that under the Act passed by this House local

authorities now have power to acquire these houses permanently. The requisitioning of them would only be a temporary measure, which would be much less satisfactory to the incoming tenant.

Mr. Rankin: That being so, will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear to the local authorities—for they are not clear about it now—that they have the power to requisition these houses? The Corporation of Glasgow last week refused to requisition a particular house at my request.

Mr. Woodburn: No doubt my hon. Friend's Question will call the attention of local authorities to their powers.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the houses are not worth requisitioning by the local authorities, and that night after night they are being advertised in the Scottish newspapers? The local authorities well know that these houses are condemned in their records, but the public do not know.

Infantile Paralysis, Strathdon

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will set up a special medical inquiry into outbreaks of infantile paralysis at Strathdon, having regard to the unique circumstances of which he has been informed.

Mr. Woodburn: Medical officers of my Department are in touch with the local medical officer of health, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as their expert assessment is available.

Mr. Spence: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this matter will be given the highest possible priority, and will he assure the House that he does realise the exceptional opportunity now being offered of getting some information on the cause of infantile paralysis?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the whole country is very anxious to find out the causes and cure of infantile paralysis. The facts which he has put before us are of an interesting nature, and the medical research people are busy on the job.

Air-Raid Shelters, Glasgow

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland


whether it is the Government's policy to remove air-raid shelters in Glasgow where the inhabitants complain of their presence.

Mr. Woodburn: The present instructions to local authorities are that for the time being work on the demolition of shelters and the collection of Anderson and Morrison shelters should be discontinued. I am, however, willing to consider any special cases affecting public health or safety.

Colonel Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are numerous cases of these shelters becoming in-sanitary nuisances, and will he therefore arrange that in such cases the overriding instruction will be to take them away?

WAR PENSIONS (STERLING EXCHANGE RATE)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions how many war pensioners live in dollar or hard currency countries; and what proposals he has to help them in view of devaluation.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): About 3,700 in the U.S.A.; 11,000 in Canada and 750 in other hard currency countries. The amounts of pension and allowances are stated in sterling in the War Pensions instruments, and I have no power to vary them in accordance with changes in exchange rates. I am, however, considering whether any means can be found of assisting pensioners in special cases, such as those receiving unemployability supplement, who may suffer hardship.

Sir I. Fraser: If the American Legion, the Canadian Legion and other associates of the British Legion can bring particulars to the attention of the Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman see how far any of these men may receive higher assessments or some of the new allowances which those in this country have had?

Mr. Marquand: My own officers in Canada are already collecting information, but if the sort of organisations which the hon. Gentleman mentions can give me more information, I shall certainly be prepared to consider it.

Mr. Driberg: Since the Ministry of Pensions undertook various responsibilities for payment in this country on

behalf of allied Governments who had troops stationed here during the war, is it possible to make any reciprocal arrangements?

Mr. Marquand: I hardly think so.

Earl Winterton: In view of the great importance of this matter, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is likely to be in a position to give a definite answer? He mentioned in his reply that he was giving consideration to this matter.

Mr. Marquand: It is a little difficult to, promise a definite date, but I am making inquiries with all speed. Several countries are involved. Perhaps a Question could be put down in about a fortnight's time.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that dollar pensioners in this country have had a very substantial increase and sterling pensioners in dollar countries have had a very substantial decrease, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the American authorities some way of sorting out this situation?

Mr. Marquand: The numbers are by no means equal, nor are the amounts.

LAW OF LIBEL (LEGISLATION)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Prime Minister whether legislation will be introduced to give effect to the recommendations of the Porter Committee for the amendment of the law of libel.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Effect has already been given to all the recommendations of the Committee relating to practice and procedure which can be dealt with by Rules of Court. I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to deal with the remaining recommendations during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Sir S. Reed: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a declaration by a high legal authority as to the inequity of the present law and the desirability of amendment? Will he consider whether appropriate legislation could usefully be introduced in another place?

The Prime Minister: I have considered that matter, but I am afraid that the legislative programme in both Houses does not allow of that.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (BRITISH DELEGATES)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister the relationship between our Parliament and the British delegates to the Council of Europe; and in what way their activities at Strasbourg will come under review in this House of Commons.

The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom representatives in the Consultative Assembly speak and vote in the Assembly as individuals, and are not responsible to this House for the speeches which they make in the Assembly. His Majesty's Government, under the terms of the Statute of the Council of Europe, decide how the United Kingdom representatives shall be appointed and, of course, are responsible to this House in that respect. The general principles governing the appointments on the recent occasion are contained in the statements made by the Lord President of the Council on 5th May, and by myself on 2nd June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on the Committee of Ministers, is answerable to the House for his actions in that body.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Could a report on the proceedings at Strasbourg be placed in the Library so that we can read what is happening there?

Mr. Gallacher: Nothing happens.

The Prime Minister: That is hardly a question to put to me, but I will look into it and let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Scollan: After the recent experience we had of what took place at Strasbourg, are the Government not prepared to reconsider this question, especially in view of the irresponsible statements dangerous to the welfare of this country which were made by people who were thought by the Continentals to represent this House?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: While agreeing with the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask whether it will be possible in the near future to have a Debate on the question of foreign affairs covering the matters that were raised at Strasbourg?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question to the

Leader of the House some time on Business.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the issue of medals to delegates whose services were not required at Strasbourg?

ATOMIC ENERGY (INFORMATION)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the refusal of the United States Government to give His Majesty's Government information in the technical use of atomic energy, he will consider approaching the Soviet Government in order to obtain this information.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): My right hon. Friend does not accept the statement in the first part of this Question. The answer to the Question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Piratin: Is it not the fact that a few months ago the British and the Canadian Governments requested such information from the United States and were refused it? Is it not also the fact that in the Soviet Union atomic energy is reported as being now used for industrial purposes? As there is a need in our country for increased productivity, should we not seek this information?

Mr. Mayhew: So far, the Soviet Government have shown themselves reluctant to part with information of this kind.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Lord President of the Council, in view of the economic difficulties of the country, if it is still proposed to proceed with the arrangements for a fun fair in Battersea Park during the Festival of Britain.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir, but "fun fair" would be a misleading description of the Festival Gardens as a whole. The so-called fun fair, which is better described as the amusement section, will be only a small part of the Festival Gardens. It will take up only about a sixth of the whole area. It is clear that some people are still thinking


of the Festival Gardens project as one huge hurdy-gurdy. But the rest of the Festival Gardens—about 30 acres out of the 37 earmarked—is to provide rest, refreshment and amusements and entertainments of other kinds for visitors to the South Bank exhibition. These amenities would normally be provided on the same site as the exhibition and as an integral part of it, but because of the limited site on the South Bank this is not possible.
As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 12th July, most of the attractions in the amusement section are to be provided by concessionaires who will pay rent for them. It is not expected that this section of the Festival Gardens will result in any loss.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in these serious and difficult times it would be better to divert this effort into something which would bring economic help to the people? How does he expect the people to appreciate the seriousness of the situation when this sort of rubbish is put over to them? Is he trying to impress upon them that we are now round "recovery corner" completely?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman adopts this point of view he ought to advocate the closing of every cinema and every form of amusement in the country. Taking this project by and large, it is a sound economic proposition which will also bring dollars into the country. I very much hope that this will not be the subject of partisan consideration.

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that his use of the term "amusement section" instead of "fun fair" does not mean that those who enter the amusement section will be expressly forbidden to have any fun?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Savings

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement upon the present position of National Savings.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will

make a statement upon the present position in relation to National Savings.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I shall be making such a statement tomorrow evening at the National Savings Rally, but if the hon. Member has any particular points as to which he desires information perhaps he would put a Question down.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not this the proper place in which a statement should be made? I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in particular whether he is prepared to make the terms offered more attractive to savers.

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Paper.

Mr. H. Strauss: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the week-end speech of his colleague the Minister of Health who said that people's money would be redistributed by way of retribution? Will that help savings?

Sir S. Cripps: I shall hope to deal with my own speech and with that of nobody else.

Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear—it is not clear from his answer—that this House is the proper place in which to make important statements?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not propose to make any important statement. I propose to make a statement at the National Savings Rally, at which representatives of other political parties will also make statements.

Sir J. Mellor: Are we to understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not propose to make any announcement whatsoever, and does not propose to make any departure from his existing policy with regard to National Savings?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Sterling Exchange Rate

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to protect the tourist industry, in view of devaluation and the possible resulting rise in costs to hotels, restaurants and places of entertainment for foreign visitors bringing dollars and other foreign exchange to this country.

Sir S. Cripps: None at present. I hope that increases in internal costs and prices will be avoided as far as possible.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Empire and foreign Governments he consulted and informed, respectively, before he announced the decision of His Majesty's Government to devalue the pound.

Sir S. Cripps: Either directly or through the International Monetary Fund, I informed all Commonwealth Governments, all members of the Fund and of the Or-ganisation for European Economic Co-operation, and the Governments of Burma, Iraq and Israel. Communications were made by His Majesty's Government to the Governments of Belgium, France and the Netherlands in accordance with the provisions for consultation in our Monetary Agreements with those countries.

Sir W. Smithers: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman delay that announcement to all the other countries because he did not dare admit the utter failure, owing to his folly, of the Socialist administration?

Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction expressed by the French Government at the lack of notice given to them on devaluation? Was the notice in accordance with the Treaty of Dunkirk?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes; we gave the notice in accordance with the practicabilities of the situation. seeing that we had to safeguard our own reserves. We gave as long a notice as possible.

Exchange Control

Mr. I. J. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the losses to the nation, in the period leading up to devaluation, due to absence of exchange control or ineffective control; what percentage of such total loss is attributable to transactions involving sterling by persons not susceptible to the jurisdiction of British statutes; how much attributable to the transactions susceptible to such laws; and if he will estimate the amount, if any, lost by reason of transactions by British citizens ineffectively controlled.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot give any reliable estimates of losses which have been incurred, either as a result of activities of persons outside our jurisdiction, or through evasion of Exchange Control regulations on the part of our own residents; nor would it be possible to estimate the proportion of the losses caused by the first category as compared with the second. I am satisfied, however, that the great bulk of the losses that occurred were due to operations by traders outside our control, and that those due to deliberate evasion on the part of our own nationals were relatively small.

Mr. Pitman: May we not all be gratified, then, that exchange control in itself and the acts of those who have been working at it have been very satisfactory and that nothing has been left undone, either in regulations or in the administration of them?

Sir S. Cripps: I am sure the Exchange Control authorities will be most grateful to the hon. Member.

Major Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are currently in force to ensure that exports of capital from Britain to the rest of the sterling area do not result in a drain on our gold and dollar resources; whether he is satisfied with these measures; and what steps he proposes to take to reinforce them.

Sir S. Cripps: Every Government within the sterling area exercises exchange control powers similar to our own with the object of preventing a drain on our gold or dollar resources. While I am satisfied that the existing system of control is very effective in achieving this object, the system is kept constantly under review in order that concerted action can be taken to strengthen it whenever the need should arise.

Miners and Railwaymen (Concessions)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any estimate of the amount of tax lost to the revenue in a year through the free distribution of coal to miners by the National Coal Board and the provision of free travel facilities to railway employees by British Railways.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that I cannot say what tax would be paid if benefits in kind like those referred to were made liable to tax.

India (Sterling Balances)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form the sterling balances of India are held in the United Kingdom; and what rate of interest is paid or credited.

Sir S. Cripps: The sterling balances of India, which include the holdings of commercial banks and other commercial and private holders as well as those of the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India, are in the form of bank balances and holdings of short-term and other debt, such as Treasury Bills and British Government or other securities. In so far as the obligations held by Indian institutions or residents are those of His Majesty's Government, the interest at present payable on the holdings is at the rate current for each type of debt.

Reparations (Policy)

Mr. David Eccles: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning His Majesty's Government's policy in relation to Article 6A of the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Reparations of 21st December, 1945.

Sir S. Cripps: Not yet, Sir, but I hope to be able to do so shortly. I will let the hon. Member know as soon as I am ready to answer a Question on this subject.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Turton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Dr. Hart, of Alne, is being pressed to pay £61 as Purchase Tax on streptomycin sent as a gift, from December, 1947, to March, 1948, from the United States in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of his three-year-old daughter who was suffering from miliary tuberculosis; that Streptomycin was prescribed by the Streptomycin Regulations, 1948, as being within the scope of the Penicilin Act, 1947, and was exempted from Purchase Tax in April, 1948; and whether, in all the circumstances of this case, he will abandon his claim for Purchase Tax on a gift of an essential drug sent in order to save life.

Sir S. Cripps: Purchase Tax was legally chargeable on Streptomycin at the time these consignments were imported, whether or not they were sent as a gift and it was duly paid by the agents who acted for Dr. Hart. No claim has been made for its refund.

Mr. Turton: Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that Dr Hart has protested vehemently ever since the tax was levied on this life-saving drug and that he holds letters from the Customs and Excise acknowledging the fact that he has so protested? It is quite wrong to say that he has not

Sir S. Cripps: I said that no claim has been made for its refund. The tax was paid by B.O.A.C. and they have not claimed any refund.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Are we to understand that, if a claim is now made for refund of this Purchase Tax, in these circumstances the matter will be reconsidered?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly; all claims of that type are always considered in the light of the circumstances.

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that retail exports involving a large number of dollars are being lost to this country because of the inability of visitors from North America to pay for their goods in retail stores and take them away with them instead of having to fill in forms and have the goods delivered to ship, and in view of the overriding necessity of obtaining dollars if he will alter the regulations so that visitors from abroad who produce their passports and pay in dollars can collect their goods in the normal way and the retailer can reclaim the Purchase Tax by producing evidence of the dollars banked and the passport number of the purchaser.

Sir S. Cripps: Such a scheme already exists. Citizens of the United States or Canada who exchange dollars through a bank in this country (or draw sterling from an American or Canadian account) can, under suitable safeguards, buy limited quantities of clothing free of Purchase Tax, and collect their goods in the normal way. Full details of the scheme were published in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 20th August, 1949.

Mr. Lewis: Would the Chancellor say what he means by "suitable safeguards" and what that involves in respect of the visitor from North America who wishes to make a purchase?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member would be good enough to look at the article in the "Board of Trade Journal" to which I have drawn attention he will find the safeguards.

Mr. Lewis: Does it mean that this visitor has to fill up some form or other or to take some irksome step other than just going into the store to purchase the goods and take them away? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this has resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to this country because people do not stop here; they go to France where they do not have this difficulty.

Mr. Turton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the method employed between 5th December, 1947, and 13th March, 1948, in determining the value for Purchase Tax purposes of gifts of streptomycine sent from the United States of America in an attempt to save the life of a child suffering from miliary tuberculosis.

Sir S. Cripps: The importer's agent declared Purchase Tax values of 16s. 3d. a gramme for three consignments and 22s. for a fourth. With the exception of one consignment declared at 16s. 3d. which was revalued at 22s., these declarations were accepted. I understand that the higher figure is in line with trade prices at about the same time.

British Aid (Post-War Gifts and Loans)

Major Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount to date of aid granted by Great Britain to other countries since the end of the war, distinguishing between amounts loaned, outright gifts or grants, and grants made under the Intra-European Payments Scheme.

Sir S. Cripps: Aid by the United Kingdom to other countries in the form of gifts or loans of cash, goods, and services, has amounted to £950 million since the end of the war. Of this, £65 million represents drawing rights exercised on us under the Intra-European Payments

Scheme, £400 million is in gifts or grants, and £485 million is recoverable aid.

Treasury Bonds

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present holding of 2½ per cent. Treasury Bonds now quoted around 69 per cent. in the National Insurance Fund and in the Post Office Savings Bank; and what was the average price at which the stock was purchased in each case.

Sir S. Cripps: Statements showing the nominal amounts of 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock held in the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund on 31st March, 1949, and in the Post Office Savings Bank's Fund on 31st December, 1948, have already been issued by the National Debt Commissioners and laid before Parliament. The accounts of the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund, which will show the cost price and market value of stock held in that Fund on 31st March, 1949, will be laid before the House in due course. In accordance with long-established practice, I am not prepared to anticipate or add to the information regularly given to Parliament under Statute.

Mr. Osborne: I should like to ask the Chancellor what he means by "in due course," because there is a good deal of nervousness about the investment in this stock of these two Funds. It already shows a depreciation of nearly one-third. It is very important to people whose interests are involved.

Sir S. Cripps: "In due course" means when, under the Statute which regulates the matter, they have to present their accounts to Parliament.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Chancellor aware that if any private citizen behaved as his predecessor did when he issued the stock he would find himself at the Old Bailey?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any private citizen issuing Government stock.

Overseas Insurance Companies (Investments)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the liabilities of overseas


insurance companies to policy-holders in this country was invested in dollar securities at the end of 1946, 1947 and 1948;
(2) what is the amount of insurance premiums collected in each of the last five years in this country by overseas insurance companies and invested in dollar securities.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Dollar Allowance (Mr. G. C. Chelioti)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allowance of dollars was made to Mr. G. C. Chelioti, chairman of Claude General Neon Lights, Durams and Glass Bulbs, a director of the General Electric Company and a member of the General Council of the Engineering Employers' Federation in respect of his visit to the United States of America in October, 1949; and what were the purposes of such visit.

Sir S. Cripps: As I have repeatedly stated, it would not be proper to disclose details of individual applications for foreign exchange made to the Bank of England under the Exchange Control Act, 1947.

Mr. Blackburn: While I in no way wish to interfere with the freedom of speech of a British subject anywhere in the world, would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that those who, like Mr. Chelioti or Mr. Stewart Granger, go to the United States of America and run down this country and the workers of this country are despised by decent-minded people both in the United States and here?

Lower-Paid Workers (Wages)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking in consultation with the trade union leaders, the boards of nationalised industries, and the employers, to bring about an increase of wages for the lower paid workers, in view of the increased difficulties arising from the devaluation of sterling.

Sir S. Ctipps: None, Sir. It is not for me to initiate movements for wage increases.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the Chancellor's reference to the family in his devaluation speech, and his announcement about practical help to the poorer paid families, would not practical help to them be of much more value than the continuance of this sentimental twaddle?

Sir S. Cripps: This is not dealing with sentimental twaddle but dealing with the level of wages.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Chancellor read his own speech? That talked about the importance of the family and recognised the need for increasing the incomes of the poorer-paid families. Will not the Chancellor take some steps to assist them?

CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL RIGHTS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is now the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the implementation of the Masterman Committee's Report on the political activities of civil servants;
(2) if he will make a statement as to the result of his discussions with the staff side of the Civil Service Whitley Council on the subject of the proposed restrictions on the political liberties of civil servants.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now announce the result of the Government's reconsideration of their decision to adopt the Masterman Committee's recommendations.

Sir S. Cripps: Action to implement the recommendations of the Masterman Committee remains suspended. The Staff Side of the National Whitley Council have submitted suggestions which are under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now give the assurance, which the Lord President refused to give on 30th July, that no limitation shall be put on the existing political rights of any civil servant until this House has had an opportunity to debate the matter?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I cannot make any further statement until after the discussions


cussions which I have mentioned have proceeded.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that this is a very reasonable request for this House to make? I did ask the Lord President before we adjourned. All that we are now asking is whether, when these discussions are over, this House will be given an opportunity to discuss the matter before decisions are taken.

Sir S. Cripps: It is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to decide discussions in this House. All I can say is that I can make no further statement until these discussions have proceeded.

Mr. Keeling: Was it not a mistake for the Government to publish their decision simultaneously with the Report itself? Would it not be better in future to await any Debate in this House? In this case the discussion was highly critical on both sides of the House.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is no case for restricting liberties which have been enjoyed in practice by a section of the community unless it can be shown that those liberties have been abused?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the Business for this week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. I have the following statement to make on this week's Business:
Today, as already announced, we propose to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Overseas Resources Development Bill, and the Second Reading of the New Forest Bill [Lords] and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
The Sea Fish Industry Bill will not now be considered today. The Government have decided to propose an Amendment to the Bill, and this will make it

necessary for the House to consider a further Financial Resolution before the Bill can proceed.
On Friday, the Second Reading of the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Bill will not be taken in view of the representations made by the local authority associations who have asked for more time to consider the Bill.
The Business which is proposed for Friday is as follows: Second Reading of the Telegraph Bill; Second Reading of the Nurses Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and, if there is time, Second Readings of the following Consolidation Measures; the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill [Lords], the Representation of the People Bill [Lords], and the Civil Aviation Bill [Lords], which are usually formal.

Mr. Eden: May I further ask the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House when it is intended to inform the House of the Government's proposals to deal with the present financial and economic situation?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement after Questions on Monday next.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, bear in mind on Thursday the arrangements the Government have in contemplation for a Debate upon that statement?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. No doubt discussions can take place through the usual channels. I think that it will be for the convenience of hon. Members generally if they have time to consider the statement which the Prime Minister will be making, but certainly we shall be willing to discuss the question of a Debate through the usual channels, and they can proceed at a convenient time.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that last Thursday the Prime Minister said that there would be a statement within a few days? I think it was our hope that it might have been possible to make the statement this Thursday so that the House could consider the matter during the week-end and debate it next week.

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is anxious to make the statement as soon as possible, but the House will appreciate that there are a considerable number of Departments involved that must be properly consulted if proper and firm conclusions are to be reached. I do not think the Prime Minister will be able to make the statement before Monday of next week.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: In view of the fact that the Government knew as long ago as August they were going, to devalue, are they not taking an incredibly long time to announce the complementary policy that must inevitably go with such a thing?

Mr. Morrison: I think not. In any case, the hon. Member is getting into somewhat acute controversy that may be more effectively expressed on both sides during the Debate.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the contents of the statement will not be made known to any other body before they are made known to this House?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Morrison: Well, Sir, it is impossible for me to give a firm affirmative in reply to that. The Cabinet has got to know before anybody else knows.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that in the Prime Minister's statement something is said in regard to this matter of the wages of the poorer-paid workers?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman had better wait to see what is in the statement, to see which matters he wishes to raise thereafter.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), can we have an assurance that the first public statement to be made on the Government's measures to deal with the crisis will be made in this House on Monday and not before?

Mr. Morrison: I have no reason to think that the Prime Minister is anxious to make the statement to another body rather than to the House; but as to what

communications pass between the Government and representative bodies of citizens, that is within the discretion of the Government, and the Government when they do so, are themselves responsible to the House of Commons. Therefore, as a matter of general doctrine, I am not prepared to give this special undertaking.

Capt. Crookshank: Will there be some leakages instead?

Mr. Charles Williams: On a matter of this grave importance is not the House entitled to have the first notice, rather than other bodies such as Savings Committees?

Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman not only make this statement as early as possible but take action as quickly as possible, because of the unsettling effect upon trade and industry of this uncertainty? Can we have steps taken quickly, too?

Mr. Morrison: That is clearly the intention of the Prime Minister and of the Government.

Earl Winterton: Could we be told when we are to have the further stages of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Bill—an important Bill which was accepted on both sides of the House and which, for some mysterious reason not hitherto disclosed by the Government, has not since been brought before the House? When will this be taken? What is the reason for the hold-up?

Mr. Morrison: I think, perhaps, it would be more convenient if the noble Lord put that Question on Thursday, and I shall take note of it in the meantime.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that Mr. Arthur Deakin has announced that before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his devaluation broadcast he told the Trades Union Congress General Council, may we be told why the paymasters of the Government should be told before this House?

Mr. Scollan: When dealing with this question, will the Leader of the House tell the House if anything is going to be done about the recent circular that has been issued by the Institute of Directors calling upon all key people in industry to oppose the Government—evidently to oppose the plan for trying to bridge the dollar gap?

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') to empower the Treasury, under section twelve of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948'), to guarantee certain other charges as well as interest, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to guarantees authorised by the new Act in the sums issuable out of that Fund under the Act of 1948;
(b) the raising under the National Loans Act, 1939, of any money required for providing or replacine sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund by paragraph (a) of this Resolution;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer of receipts of a Minister under section thirteen of the Act of 1948 in respect of guarantees authorised by the new Act;
(d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the said receipts and their application in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the Act of 1948."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NEW FOREST BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In moving the Second Reading of the New Forest Bill, I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that since its introduction it has been considered elsewhere, and its present form is the result of deliberations and of consultations with the local and other interests who presented petitions. I think that I may claim that the Bill is now acceptable to those interests, as it is to His Majesty's Government.
It will, of course, be common knowledge that for many years conflict and

disagreement—greater at some times than at others—existed in the New Forest, between the Crown and the commoners who have various rights over the Forest, the most important of these being the right to depasture their animals over unenclosed parts of the Forest, more generally known as the open forest. In more recent years, it has been considered desirable to bring the general position in the Forest under consideration in the light of present-day conditions, and to this end a Committee was set up under the chairmanship of the Rt. Hon. Harold Baker.
The terms of reference of that committee, as the House will know, were
to investigate the state and condition of the New Forest and, having regard to existing rights and interests, to recommend such measures as they consider desirable and necessary for adjusting the Forest to modern requirements.
The committee took evidence from all interested bodies, local bodies and those of more national concern, and their report was published in November, 1947. I think that it is right to say that there is agreement on all sides, that it is an excellent report, and I have great pleasure in adding the tribute and thanks of my right hon. Friend, because it is to the right hon. Gentleman and to the other members of the committee that we owe thanks, for the very great public service which they have so freely rendered.
I do not think that I need at this stage, go through the main conclusions of the committee, but there are some important issues which have been the subject of discussion as the Bill proceeded on its way in another place and which, perhaps, ought to be referred to now. The first matter is that of the Constitution of the Ancient Court of Verderers. At the moment, the Court consists of an official verderer appointed by His Majesty and six verderers elected by local residents and the commoners, by personal voting which involves no element of secrecy. The Baker Report recommended that there should be a chief verderer to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, four verderers to be elected by the commoners, and six to be appointed by interested parties.
I do not think that we need at this stage go into the various considerations which led us to feel that this recommendation could not be wholly accepted, but, following discussions between the Forestry Commission


and the local interests, provision has been made for an official verderer to be appointed by His Majesty as heretofore, five elective verderers, and four to be nominated, one by my right hon. Friend, one by the Forestry Commission, one by the planning authority and the other by a body concerned with amenity, such body to be designated by my right hon. Friend.
There was a fear in the minds of some of the local interests that in certain, although possibly remote, circumstances the elected verderers would be outvoted by the combined votes of the official verderer and the nominated verderers, although this would only happen on the assumption that the chairman had the casting vote. My right hon. Friend hopes very much that the verderers, whether they are elected or nominated, will not treat any matter brought before them as sectional, but will consider it in the light of the interest of the Forest, coupled with the national interest.
However, it is my right hon. Friend's desire in this, as in all other matters, that there should not be any possible chance of the elective verderers being outvoted on the important matters, for example, of enclosures for afforestation and for agriculture. The verderer nominated by the Forestry Commission will not be allowed to vote on the afforestation issue and, similarly, the agricultural verderer will not be allowed to vote on the agricultural issue; so when considering Clause 1 of the Bill which deals with the constitution of the Court, it is necessary for the House to bear in mind the provision of subsection (4) of Clause 12 and subsection (6) of Clause 14. The effect will be quite obviously that the five elective verderers will have the final say on these matters, if they so wish, but my right hon. Friend has no doubt that after considering the pros and cons of any issue put before them they will exercise this power in a wise and statesmanlike manner. Clause 5 provides that elections in future will be by secret ballot instead of by the present provision.
The next point upon which a good deal of discussion has centred has been that of finance. It was maintained by the local interests that the local verderers should be financially independent, so that they would not have to agree to anything which they considered contrary to the

best interests of the Forest, simply because of the possible alternative of bankruptcy. It has been visualised, rightly or wrongly, that instead, of being able to give unfettered consideration to proposals for enclosures under Clauses 12 and 14, they might be forced to agree to them on account of the need for funds. This objection has been met by the inclusion in the Bill of paragraph 8 of the First Schedule whereby any reasonable expenses incurred by the verderers in the preparation, maintenance or provision of the electoral register shall be met by the Forestry Commissioners, and of subsection (3) of Clause 18 which provides for compensation for loss or diminution of common rights consequent on the grant of licences.
It has already been arranged that the Forestry Commission should bear the cost of the preparation of plans showing lands to which rights of common are attached, that payments would be made to the verderers in respect of any enclosures under Clauses 12 and 14, and that compensation for loss of common rights would be payable under Clauses 16 and 17. Therefore, I think that one can say that the verderers' expenses will be limited strictly to matters arising out of the exercise of the rights of common, mainly the care of the commoners' animals.
The major source of income to the verderers is by way of the fees payable for the turning out of animals on the Forest, which fees are at present limited by the New Forest Act of 1877. The change in money values alone justifies the increase in these fees, and Clause 9 will enable the verderers, inter alia, to increase them to such amount as they think right and proper. Tenants of my right hon. Friend in the New Forest who turn out animals under licence granted by my right hon. Friend will in future have to pay the appropriate fees to the verderers, which means that there will be a new source of revenue which the verderers so far have not enjoyed.
When dealing with the constitution of the verderers, I covered to some extent the matter of the enclosures for afforestation and agriculture provided for in Clauses 12 and 14, and I think that it is only necessary at this stage to say that there is agreement on all sides as to the urgent need of land for afforestation. We


need in this country a great deal of increased planting of trees for the future, and my right hon. Friend trusts that the verderers in their consideration of this matter as it affects the New Forest will give due weight to the national need and ensure that the New Fore pays its just proportion towards meeting it.
As regards the agricultural provision, the ultimate aim is to improve the grazing and thus benefit the commoners. Views as to the best method of carrying out this improvement are not unnaturally at variance, and the Clause in question leaves the permission for cultivation followed by permanent pasture entirely in the hands of the verderers. It is the view of my right hon. Friend that in addition to a substantial increase in the number of animals turned out in the Forest there is room for further afforestation and for the temporary cultivations. It is of the utmost importance that the Forest be used to its fullest extent consistent with the preservation of the amenities, and my right hon. Friend wishes me to commend this fact to the verderers in their deliberations on any presentments which may be made under the Clauses in question.
The liability for the management of the drainage, culverts and bridges in the open forests, and the keeping of the grazing in the forest sufficiently clear of seedling trees and scrub, has also been the subject of a good deal of discussion. In the past this work has been done mainly by the Forestry Commission, but there is in fact no statutory liability on anybody at all to do it. The Forest is to all intents and purposes a national forest park; it is extensively used and enjoyed by the public, and there is much to be said, I think, in favour of part of the expense of maintaining it being met from public funds.
Clause 11 puts this duty squarely on the shoulders of the Forestry Commissioners, in so far as such work is reasonably necessary, having regard always to the interests of amenity. It is not the intention that the Forest should be converted into something like a London park, but rather that it should be maintained, as nearly as possible, in its present natural state; but of course we must always bear in mind, as those concerned must always bear in mind, the needs of modern times,

which are changed compared with those that existed in the past.
Another matter which I think I should raise is with regard to Clause 7. There is a feeling locally that the Forest should be divided into five electoral districts, each to elect one verderer, and much discussion has proceeded between officers of the Forestry Commission and representatives of local interests. I think it can be agreed that there are many pros and cons, but it seems very difficult to reach a decision until the electoral register and the plans referred to in Clauses 3 and 4 are prepared. It seems to my right hon. Friend impossible in present circumstances to say just where boundaries should be in order to divide the lands occupied by commoners into five more or less equally representative areas; and there are other matters, such as the position of commoners who occupy lands in more than one district, the location of the open forest relative to the commoners' land, and various other points which have come out in discussion.
When the documents I have mentioned—the plans and the electoral register—are ready, it will be less difficult to assess the whole position, and it may be found that some of the possible disadvantages disappear, or equally that the disadvantages grow in their relative importance and outweigh some of the advantages. In Clause 7, therefore, my right hon. Friend is seeking power to cover this matter if, at a later date, the verderers submit a satisfactory scheme. The position is kept quite open, and if in the light of all the discussions it is found to be the right thing to do, and a satisfactory scheme comes forward, my right hon. Friend is seeking power in Clause 7 to do it.
Clauses 16 and 17 deal with public roads in the Forest, and provide machinery for the transfer of land of the Forest which may be needed for road improvements to the appropriate highway authority, with provisions for the protection of Forest interests and for compensation. Clause 16 relates to the existing trunk road between Cadnam and Ringwood, which passes through the northwestern part of the Forest for a distance of about seven miles. This road forms part of the national system of trunk roads for which the Minister of Transport is the highway authority. It seems to us


that through traffic, including traffic between London and Bournemouth—which some of us have experienced at different times—should use this particular road, passing as it were through a corner of the Forest, rather than be encouraged to use A.35, which passes through Lyndhurst and the centre of the Forest. If that is so, this particular trunk road between Cadnam and Ringwood may eventually have to be widened and improved to carry the increased traffic, but no major works are envisaged or likely to be possible for some years to come.
The Clause therefore includes powers to enclose the trunk road to prevent the risk of accidents due to ponies or cattle straying on to the road, if it should become necessary in the light of circumstances as they develop. If this should be necessary, care will be taken to preserve amenities. It has been suggested that the best way of dealing with the problem would be to provide what I am told is called a ha-ha ditch, in order to prevent animals straying easily on to the road, and the Clause includes a provision for consultation between the Minister of Transport, the verderers and the local planning authority—in this case the Southampton County Council—on any proposal to use raised fencing. Provision is also made for crossings which would be desirable if the road were enclosed, to allow animals to pass properly from one side of the road to the other.
Clause 17 relates to other public roads in the Forest for which the highway authority is not the Ministry but the Southampton County Council. They may need to be improved or widened from time to time, although the intention is, as I have said, that the main flow of through traffic should use the trunk road. This Clause contains no provision for fencing. Any area of the Forest land which would be needed for these road improvements would obviously be very small in relation to the area of the Forest.
There have been very wide consultations and discussions; a whole variety of points from one side or another have come up and been considered. I think it is fair to say, having regard to all that has now happened and been said and done, that this Bill, in its present form, should do much to preserve this ancient forest as far as possible in its natural state, and to make for more harmonious

relations between what are sometimes described as "the conflicting interests." My right hon. Friend is confident that, provided its provisions are operated in a co-operative spirit—and that obviously involves everybody—with the national as well as the local interest in mind, this Bill can be made to work satisfactorily. It is with the greatest pleasure, and in the assurance that we are here doing something to help along a very important and valuable part of our national heritage, that I move the Second Reading of this Bill.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has explained the Bill to us in a speech of great lucidity but of extreme rapidity, and were it not for the fact that I had some acquaintance with the subject matter of the Bill before I heard him speak, I should have found it more difficult to follow him than I have done. If I myself proceed at a somewhat slower rate of utterance, it will not be because I desire to hold up business but because I think I am incapable of such articulation, at once clear and rapid, as that to which we have just listened.
The Bill is made easier to understand because—as is quite evident to one who has seen many Bills in his time—great skill has gone into its drafting. Perhaps the House will permit me to remark that I happen to know that this is the last Bill with which Sir Denys Stocks, the distinguished legal adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, will be concerned. Though I never as a rule name those who are advisers, I think the House would permit me to say, because he served me so well in my time and has ever since served the Ministry, that we wish him every success and happiness in the retirement which he has so justly earned by right of distinguished service to the Ministry of Agriculture.
This Bill affects both private and public interests. It is clearly of great interest to the commoners themselves, whose rights are affected by the proposals; but it also affects the public, inasmuch as the New Forest is now a State forest. Quite apart from that formal link, the New Forest, as is well known, is one of our finest beauty spots and is a treasure to the whole nation, so we all have an interest in any Bill which concerns it, not


only to see that justice is done to those private citizens most intimately affected, but also to see that this great national heritage is handed down by us unimpaired to the next generation.
This Bill, therefore, takes the form of what is called a hybrid Bill. It has been said about some hybrids in the past that they have neither pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity. I do not think that can be said about this Bill, because it has a very long line of predecessors in legislation dealing with the New Forest. As for its posterity, I am sure that not even the right hon. Gentleman would claim that this will be the last Bill about the New Forest to be introduced to Parliament. Times change and we change with them, and it is obviously necessary to amend our enactments so as to bring them up to date.
The reason for so much legislation in the past about the New Forest is, I think, to be found in the diversity of the interests which any Act affects. There are the rights of the commoners themselves, pasture, mast, turbary, fuel and marl. These rights as a group constitute a valuable body of privileges. Then, of course, there are the interests of the State in producing food and timber, and the interests of the public, not only in access to the New Forest, but in seeing the beauty of the forest so maintained as to make access to it continue to be desirable.
This Bill, like the legislation which preceded it, is an attempt to reconcile these sometime conflicting interests. Like all compromises, it cannot be all that any single interest would desire for itself. At its first seeing the light, there was a considerable feeling against it expressed by some of the commoners, and I cannot help feeling that some of this could have been, if not avoided, at least mitigated by earlier and franker consultation with the commoners as to what was proposed. Surely the history of the question, at any rate since 1851, should have warned the Government of the suspicion engendered by any further proposals to enclose part of the forest. Commoners in the past have protected their rights only by constant vigilance.
There is no doubt that in fact this is in part, an enclosure Bill. By Clause 12 up to 5,000 acres may be enclosed by

the Forestry Commission, and by Clause 14 up to 3,000 acres may be enclosed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. These enclosures are sought to be justified by the argument by which every enclosure in the past has been supported—namely, the economic necessities of the times and the need to secure greater production from the land. Is it true that these enclosures can take place only with the consent of the verderers, but it is proposed by this Bill to change the constitution of the Court of Verderers, and it is but natural that the commoners in these circumstances should look somewhat closely at the new constitution it is proposed to erect, to see how far the new body may be capable of protecting their rights and interests from further encroachments.
It is at once clear that in the proposed new body there will be a decrease in the proportion of elected members and an increase in the proportion of nominated members. Under the Act of 1877, there were seven verderers, six elected and one nominated. Now there are to be five elected and five appointed, and one of the appointed verderers will, I understand, have a casting vote because he is the chairman. By an Amendment made in another place, it is now proposed that the appointees of the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture shall not vote on proposals for enclosure sponsored by their own Departments, which is a considerable improvement on the Bill as introduced, but it is still a matter for consideration whether it goes far enough to Rive confidence to the commoners. I would stress the importance of this new scheme being started in the right atmosphere of mutual trust and co-operation. That is a matter for further consideration in the other stages of the Bill.
Certainly it is an improvement that the qualification of a verderer is enlarged. The old qualification of ownership of 75 acres of land with common rights was difficult to justify, and the new qualification of one acre in occupation will greatly enlarge the field from which people able and willing to undertake this important and at times no doubt thankless task may be selected. The electorate is also changed. Formerly anyone who was a commoner or had a Parliamentary vote in the Forest could vote in electing a verderer. Now the qualification to vote


is to be the same as that to stand for election, namely, the occupation of one acre of land with common rights.
There is only one observation which occurs to me on this proposal. There must be a number of people excluded from voting for a verderer in future who could have voted under the old law. They may not be in occupation of an acre of land with common rights attached, and yet they may be vitally interested in how the Forest is administered. I think, for example, of all those who depend for their livelihood on catering for visitors. It may be too late to do anything about this, but it seems to me that the point merits consideration.
Our national necessities are such that it is difficult to resist the proposals to produce more timber and food from the Forest, but the proposals require the greatest care in their administration so that the legitimate rights of the commoners are not needlessly or wastefully invaded, and that the beauty of the Forest is not impaired. Much will depend on the careful selection of sites for these operations to secure the minimum of interruption with the natural life of the Forest. The choice of trees is an old controversy into which I do not propose to enter today, but it is of great importance, not only from the point of view of the look of the place and of the trees, but on account of the different effects on the soil beneath conifers, on the one hand, and broad-leaf trees, on the other. The pines are unkindly to other forms of life, and the hardwoods are much more hospitable to the soil and its pasture, and also to the birds and beasts of the region.
As to the proposal in Clause 14 to make it possible to enclose land for the purpose of regenerating the pasture, it is difficult to see how the Minister justifies 3,000 acres, although it is true that that is the maximum of what can be enclosed for the regeneration of pasture. I should have thought that a much smaller area would have been sufficient for what must be an experiment; it is a worthy experiment, but it is as yet only an experiment. I am aware that the county war agricultural executive committee made some efforts in this direction during the war, but I have never seen any detailed reports of them or of what they cost. I should be very interested to know what the cost

was and what the return was for the money.
It is a very difficult problem to regenerate some of the land of this forest, much of which is acid and of poor quality. The ponies with their chisel-like teeth crop very close, and it is very difficult to establish a good sward in these conditions. I wish the experiment all success, but I do counsel the Minister in this matter to start in a manageable small area before he accepts any definite rotation as the right and best one for this difficult piece of land.
I see that by Clause 14 the land is to go back to the commoners when the pasture has been regenerated. I think the best way of commending this proposal to the commoners would be to make a success of a small area in the first place. Then there would be little difficulty, I think, in getting widespread support for an extension of cultivation. I think that the best way to improve the rougher pasture of the area is to put more cattle on it; that policy would show better, or at any rate quicker results than what is proposed in Clause 14.
There are many other points of a local character with regard to this Bill. Being a hybrid Bill it will go to a Select Committee and then to a Committee of the Whole House, and I do not wish to advise the House to hinder its progress in any way. I see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) is here. I know that he has been very active in the discussions which have led up to this Bill, and I hope we shall hear from him during the Debate. For my own part, I advise the House to accept the Motion for Second Reading.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this Debate since I am the possessor of property in the New Forest, to which common rights attach. I can therefore speak as a New Forest commoner, although not with anything like the expert knowledge of the New Forest as the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who I am glad to see has recovered in time to be here. It is surely a climacteric in his life. Remembering the part his grandfather played 80 to 100 years ago


in connection with previous New Forest Bills, it is apt that he should be here himself to advise the House and to help us pass this Bill into law.
The discussion we have had so far has been peaceful and easy, and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) has welcomed the Bill for the Opposition. I do not think the House appreciates what turbulent emotions have been aroused in the New Forest. In the calm and dispassionate atmosphere of the House we are not fully aware that there was almost a danger of embittered commoners armed with pitch-forks and riding on ponies—no doubt led by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch—taking up a position in defence of the rights which they cherish and claim to have inherited over many years. I feel that a lot of the opposition, doubts and anxieties which have been aroused over this Bill have been based on false information and suspicion of what it might do rather than the reality of what it would do.
Let us recognise at once that the Bill seeks to do something which is virtually impossible, namely, to provide for the mutually conflicting interests of the commoners, the public and the Forestry Commission which, of course, also represents the public. There is some conflict there, and it is right that we should recognise it, decide how far we can delimit the areas and how far we can decide what is reasonable to satisfy each side. I believe that the Bill is an absolute necessity, and I think the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch will agree that something had to be done about the finances of the verderers. That was the primary factor in bringing forward this Bill at all. I feel, with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, that there was some clumsy handling in the early stages.
Undoubtedly, there was a great fear on the part of people in the New Forest that there would be large-scale enclosures of the Forest which, I am convinced, were quite unjustified but which, none the less, were there. There was a suspicion that conifers, which are particularly objected to by many in the New Forest would be grown wholesale over this lovely area. There was a feeling that Lord Robinson.
the able chairman of the Forestry Commission, was so devoted to conifers and that it was entirely as a result of his initiative that a conifer appeared in Trafalgar Square last Christmas.
Of course, it is quite unfair to suggest that the Forestry Commission are not concerned equally with the amenities of the Forest. There is a national need for more trees and it is desirable that more should be grown, if possible, in the area of the New Forest. But I repeat, the proposals for these enclosures were primarily actuated as a result of a desire to assist the verderers in their finances. I believe there are areas in the New Forest which can be properly enclosed. Although I cannot speak with the authority of all in that area, I am advised by a number of my friends, whom I regard as able in cattle management, that the forest is under-grazed and that there is scope for the increased growing of trees without seriously affecting the stock or pony raising capacity of the Forest.
The real problem, however, which the Bill has had to try to solve has been in a provision of finance. Members of another place have seen fit, in their wisdom, to take responsibility for upkeep and management of the open Forest from the verderers and put it on the Forestry Commission.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It has never been on the verderers.

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. and gallant Member is quite correct. The financial responsibility has now been clearly laid on the Forestry Commission. This will cost the country some money—I think the Bill suggests something like another £1,500 per annum. Are we justified in laying this additional obligation on the taxpayer? It is small, but there is a principle involved. Is it right that the State should contribute towards the cost of maintaining land which will be used by commoners individually for the profitable raising of stock and ponies? Personally, I feel that it is an arguable point, but I agree with the Minister about the desirability of arriving at some sort of compromise which will satisfy local interests.
I do not believe that this is a good compromise; I do not believe that it will


necessarily ensue peace. I think there may be a serious danger in what is proposed, and that it is rather extraordinary that the users of this piece of land should not be a people who are financially responsible for its upkeep. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch will point that out. None the less, a compromise has been put forward and I hope it will be accepted and given a trial. I hope that this division of interest will be recognised so that people will avoid falling into the pitfall, especially from the commoners' side, of pressing the Forestry Commission to do what they feel they should do and blaming them if they fall short of what they consider they should do.
It is clear that there will be required both from the verderers, the Deputy-Surveyor and the Forestry Commissioners in the area, qualities of a high order of diplomacy. The previous Deputy-Surveyor, Mr. Young, was a man who was greatly respected, and who succeeded in fulfilling his duties of looking after forestry interests while having satisfactory relations with local interests. It is important that every effort should be made to continue that sort of good will which was in serious danger of being destroyed when the Bill was first laid before Parliament.
There are a number of specific points to which I should like to refer, but I shall only mention them very briefly. First, there is this question of the adjacent common areas—the areas of land in which people, not being commoners of the New Forest, have common rights, and from which areas cattle are apt to wander into the New Forest itself. This Bill makes no attempt to solve the relationship between those areas and the New Forest proper. There are people in the New Forest who strive continuously to improve the quality of the stock. For instance, one day if it should be possible or desirable to make the whole of the New Forest a T.T. area—and I do not know whether that is a practical proposition or not—this question of the adjacent commons would have to be solved.
Then again there is the proposal with regard to trunk roads. The Parliamentary Secretary glossed over the difficulties that are involved in the fencing of these roads. They are very real and very difficult, and

if it is possible in any way to consider routing the main roads outside the area of the New Forest, I would urge that it be done. It is difficult I realise, but it is a very real problem to have cattle or ponies wandering across the roads at night. I myself have had the misfortune to kill a pony which was in collision with my car at night. I know a young man in the village where I live who was killed when his motor-bike ran into a pony. It is a difficult problem to adjust an ancient system of agriculture within our modern civilisation but on the subject of trunk roads and the fencing of them, the difficulties will be immense if cattle and ponies are to have the right of freedom to wander at large over the forest.
I believe the most important issue raised by this Bill is one to which little attention has been given, namely the protection of the scientific interests of the New Forest. The original report, that admirable Baker Committee Report, pointed out that the New Forest was one of the most important if not the most important areas of scientific interests in the whole of the country. They recommended that a curator with scientific knowledge should be appointed by the verderers, and should be answerable to them for the protection of scientific interests over the whole area of the Forest.
I realise that the verderers, in their new role, are not the appropriate people to employ a curator, but at the same time what assurance have we that the Forestry Commission or the verderers may not take steps in agreement either towards the growing of trees or the improvement of land from a commonable point of view which would be disastrous to some type of wild life in the Forest? There is always the possibility through drainage of alteration of the water table, which may, in fact, be disastrous, and I feel very strongly that those scientific interests, which are of great importance, should be protected in some way.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would look favourably on the suggestion of an Amendment laying down that a verderer broadly representative of the scientific interests of the country should be appointed. It would not seriously upset the balance of the Court of Verderers with regard to local interests. Indeed, I do not see how it could endanger local interests at all. It


would help local interests, but I feel that some sort of an assurance should be given by the Forestry Commission as to what is intended so as to ensure that the Nature Conservancy will be able to fulfil their duty in this most important area. Unless we have some assurance it may be necessary at a later stage to move an Amendment authorising the appointment of a verderer representative of those scientific interests.
I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House and the people of this country would agree that the wild life and the ecological study of it is of great importance and for that reason the New Forest should be protected. I should be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on this issue. The Nature Conservancy are themselves empowered under the National Parks Bill to enter into an agreement with the owners, in this case the Forestry Commission, to secure that certain lands should be managed as a nature reserve. Even so, quite apart from those specific and limited areas within the perambulation of the Forest, I believe that there should be a general assurance that nothing will be done to damage the wild life of the New Forest.
This sums up what I have to say. I shall only conclude by saying that I hope the people in the New Forest, the commoners in particular and the Forestry Commission, will really make an endeavour to co-operate. Bad feeling has been growing up recently, but now I think it is agreed on all sides that this Bill must go through. It must be accepted as the best compromise possible, and it is incumbent on everyone to do his best to work it. If there are difficulties, it may be necessary to come to the House again and have a new Bill brought forward to put them right, but meanwhile I ask that there should be an attempt to co-operate and that so far as possible good will shall grow and exist in the development of the Forest's preservation and of those important amenities which are a national birthright.

4.27 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before I come to the speech of the junior Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton) or the Bill, I should like also to pay my tribute to the work done

by Sir Denys Stocks. He has had a far from enviable job in dealing with the many complaints and the many questions put to him not only by representatives of the New Forest, but I suspect also by his Minister as well. The way in which he has dealt with the matters of the Bill itself is a tribute to a civil servant and to a man who has given of his best in order to try to achieve the best result.
I would pay my tribute too to the former Deputy Surveyor of the New Forest, Mr. Young. He has now retired, but in the years in which he represented the Forestry Commission in the New Forest he gave of his best to try to see that the conflict of interests which the hon. Member mentioned, and about which I myself will have something to say later on, were as far as possible reconciled so that the best should be made of the New Forest in the national interest.
Now I come to the Bill. If one reads the Baker Report, one is given the impression that the New Forest is a sort of miraculous survival, something which, despite the changes of fortune, has managed to survive all the vicissitudes of encroachment and enclosure by the various Governments that this country has had. That is not true at all. The only reason the New Forest has survived is because the people there have for centuries been willing to fight to protect not only their own rights, but the rights of the general public to ensure that the New Forest shall survive as an entity.
If one goes back—and I must trouble the House with this—two or three centuries, one finds that during the 18th century one Royal Forest after another was dissipated by Acts of Parliament, in which a certain percentage of the forest concerned was granted to the Crown because of its rights and a certain percentage to the commoners because of their rights. Both sides were allowed to enclose their areas, and within a very few years the forest so apportioned disappeared. The same thing would have happened to the New Forest if it had not been for the fight made by the inhabitants.
I must quote in evidence one of the renowned Prime Ministers of my party, Mr. Pitt, who, in 1792, introduced a Bill to try to enclose the New Forest. That Bill was stopped in this House and in another place by the action of the


residents of the New Forest. In the 19th century the same thing happened. A Bill was introduced in 1851 by a Government with a large majority, and the Government said frankly: "We can get the Bill through, no matter what anybody says." The Bill was designed to reduce the New Forest to nothing. It gave the Forestry Commission, in exchange for taking away the deer, the right not only to enclose 20,000 acres of the Forest but, once those 20,000 acres had grown up to a height at which the trees could not be damaged by cattle, to enclose another 20,000 acres. By that kind of rolling power it was proposed to take away the whole of the New Forest. A member of the Office of Woods at that time said: "It is right for the Crown to try to exercise their power in this way. The sooner they take away the open forest the sooner will the commoners' rights be found of no avail."
It was only by the Act of 1877 that the New Forest was preserved. The inhabitants of the New Forest had fought the matter for 26 years, between 1851 and 1877. The Act of 1877 said that the Forestry Commission should have no more than the acreage that they then enjoyed, and that the rest of the open forest would stay permanently unimpaired, not only for the benefit of the commoners but for the benefit of the people of the country. What was the answer of the Office of Woods? They said merely: "It happens that you have won this fight in Parliament, and we cannot enclose any more. So far as the open forest is concerned, we therefore have no interest whatever. We will not spend any money upon it because we have lost interest in it. We shall confine our activities to those bits that we have been allowed to enclose." When the hon. Member for Preston said that another Bill was necessary because the verderers' finances were inadequate, he said what is true. When Parliament passed the Act of 1877, it did not envisage that the Forestry Commission—or the Office of Woods, later called the Forestry Commission—would take the view which they did, that, having been defeated in their attempts to enclose the New Forest, they would take no further interest in its maintenance. That is why another Measure was necessary.
When the verderers asked for a further Act they asked for one that would put

them in an independent position and would enable them to do their duty properly as representatives of the commoners and the public. Their task was to maintain a just balance between the Crown, the commoners and the public. When the present Bill was first produced, it was a Bill of blackmail, and blackmail only. Its clauses were so designed that the verderers would either have had to agree to further enclosures or they would not get any revenue. It is as a result of the action taken by the residents of the New Forest in fighting the Bill in another place that the Bill has been so altered that now the verderers are to be put in an independent position, so far as maintenance of the open Forest is concerned, by seeing that duty of maintenance firmly placed on the shoulders of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. and gallant Member said that the Bill was deliberately framed as a piece of blackmail, but I am sure that he does not really mean that. The Bill may have given that impression and it may have been clumsily worded, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend had no intention whatsoever of bringing undue pressure to bear on the people and the commoners of the New Forest.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am very glad to receive that assurance from the hon. Member. I would ask him to study the evidence given in another place by Lord Robinson, Chairman of the Forestry Commission, on this very point. He said that it appeared to him unfortunate—that was the word he used—that the verderers should be faced with the conflicting interests of either getting no further revenue or surrendering the lands concerned. I suggest to the hon. Member that he would be well advised to see his right hon. Friend again and to go into the reasons which made the right hon. Gentleman give that undertaking.
That is, briefly, the history of the Bill. When the hon. Member for Preston said that he regretted the suspicion—I think that was actually the word he used—I would point out that it is entirely due to the fact that Governments, not only this Government but many other Governments, have seen in the New Forest something easy to seize, something from which they could get immediately a tangible


reward, if only they could do away with the rights of the commoners and of the public as a whole.
I ask the House to consider this case. We shall have time later in Committee to go into it in detail. Let us take into consideration the powers under which the Forestry Commission are now asking for 5,000 acres of forest. In another place, in a Select Committee, Lord Robinson was asked to state whether he knew that the 5,000 acres could be taken and whether he had any idea exactly from where they could be taken. To both of those questions he replied "No." All that he said in defence of asking for those powers was: "There are 40,000 acres of unenclosed forest, and if I cannot take one-eighth of them I shall be very surprised." What a reason for asking for a Clause of this nature. There was no reference to the needs, the rights or the requirements of commoners and public—simply a bald statement: "I must be able to take with advantage one-eighth of what remains."
Those people who know the New Forest must be aware that the best land has been taken from the forest and that the enclosures are all of the better, low-lying ground. In many cases watering has been taken away and land that was most suitable for immediate profit by afforestation has been that taken by the Forestry Commission. Were the Commission to substantiate the taking of a further5,000 acres—this question was thoroughly debated in another place—the Commission should have been able to show from where this could be taken without doing grave permanent injury to the rights of the commoners. I hope that the Minister will say something more on this point.
Then there is the question of the 3,000 acres suggested for agriculture. I have not only discussed this matter with soil experts, but have listened to the evidence given in another place. From where do the Ministry of Agriculture think that these 3,000 acres will come? They say that that is the maximum, and that they probably will not need so much. If they do not need it, why should they put it in the Bill? If they put it in, surely before asking Parliament to give them this power they should have taken the trouble to see that that acreage was available. So far as I know, no survey has been made.
I should be the last simply to condemn out of hand all that the Ministry of Agriculture have done for the New Forest. As a verderer I could not do it, having agreed to the temporary enclosures which they now hold, but I believe that for any real benefit to agriculture in the New Forest they are going about it in the wrong way. We do not want large reseeded areas. Such areas, very naturally, because of the nature and the newness of that grazing, congregate all the cattle upon them, and the ancient feeding places tend to go back. The new feeding places tend to be over-grazed and very quickly deteriorate. Instead of this producing any lasting benefit, I think it is upsetting the balance of the agricultural position in the New Forest. All the people with whom I have talked say that what really counts is to try to get back the small traditional grazing places and once more make them the natural habitat of the cattle of the district.
I was horrified to find that the hon. Member for Preston knew something which I did not—due entirely to my ignorance—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman had said that he thinks £1,500 a year will be required to maintain the open forests. In another place the minimum sum set down was £3,000. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not come to this House and say that, despite the obligations which he took on there, he is now going to cut them by half and thereby reduce the value of what we understood would be obtained as a result of the Select Committee in another place.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not develop arguments based upon assumptions which have no relation to anything I may have said about the New Forest.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman said it, but the spokesman on behalf of the Government said it in another place. It was laid down that the Forestry Commission should become responsible for the maintenance of the open forest. In evidence which was not challenged, that maintenance was set at a minimum of £3,000 a year. In this Bill the expenditure is put at £1,500. I ask the right hon. Gentleman why that discrepancy has arisen, and I hope that he will say why


when he replies. I was not suggesting that he was present in another place. I am merely asking how the divergence of figures has occurred.
The final matter I wish tonight to raise concerns the Court of Verderers. Some people may not quite appreciate what a Court of Verderers is, as it is an archaic body which has come down to us through the centuries. From the time of William the Conqueror, verderers were officers appointed with the sole job of seeing that the Crown rights in the forests, paramount as they were, were not used to such an extent that they acted against the legitimate rights of the small commoner and the small farmer. The duty of the verderers was, while maintaining the prerogatives of the Crown, to ensure that justice was done to the small man.
In this Bill, for the first time in history, it is proposed completely to alter the composition of the Court of Verderers. Instead of being an independent body with the very well-defined job of maintaining the balance between the various rights, the verderers are now to become a body half of which is to be elected and half to be nominated. In all the discussions I have had, I have not heard one reason from the Government why that should be so. Why is it that, in this year in which we are alleged to have a Government which believes in democracy and all the rights of the small people, the Government want to take this independence from one of the few bodies which have functioned well throughout the centuries? I hope to hear something more about this from the right hon. Gentleman.
The Minister wishes to have in this Court a member of the Forestry Commission, and a member of the Ministry of Agriculture for the grazing and the enclosures sides of the verderers' work. Also a member of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and members of such bodies as he may consider it necessary to consult for amenity purposes; and, instead of being an elected body to deal impartially with all the rights of those concerned in the Forest, the verderers will now become a Court half composed of nominees of the Minister. Why does the Minister wish to do this? In the Acts of Parliament throughout the last century and this century, he has complete powers to maintain the rights of the Crown which have now devolved upon his

Ministry. Why does he therefore wish to put his representatives on the Court? What good will they do? What purpose will they serve? They cannot help in the administration of the Forest. By their very nature they will be people concerned purely with the interests of afforestation or temporary enclosure for catch-crops of some seven years. They can add nothing to the deliberations of the verderers. As to the representative of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, I should like to know what the Minister thinks he will do.
As the hon. Member for Preston said, we in the Court of Verderers have always said, I believe rightly, that there are a very great many interests, particularly of the wild life, which must be preserved in the New Forest. We have always said—and we asked in the petitions in another place—that we should be given power to co-opt two members to the Court of Verderers who would advise and help us on these problems of wild life. I am certain that that would be an advantage, but I can see no reason whatever for all these stooges of the various Ministries to come on to the Court. If I were evil minded—I must admit that I sometimes personally feel the suspicions mentioned by the hon. Member for Preston—I could see only one reason for this, to try to invalidate the independence of the Court and to obtain sufficient nominees on it to secure the power to sway the decision of the Court.
In the New Forest we are proud that, of all the Royal Forests and of all the heritages of the small fanner and the commoner, we alone now remain. We have done that, quite honestly, by fighting and by making it clear to every Government that we will not tolerate an invasion of our rights. The Bill as originally drafted was an invasion of those rights on a major scale. Many of the things to which we objected have been taken out in another place. I hope the Government will realise the value of the New Forest; of its tradition and the part it can play in English agriculture, and will remove the other matters which I have mentioned. If the Government do that, we shall have a Bill which will be a worthy successor to the Act of 1877 and will enable the New Forest to go on not only as a pleasure to countless


thousands of holiday-makers but also as an invaluable centre of the small agriculturist.

4.50 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I am at least thankful that no tangible opposition has been expressed to the Bill so far, apart from the regrets of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre).
The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) said quite rightly that this Forest was a thing of beauty, something of great national value as well as of local value, and that all those who had any responsibility for it ought to walk warily before they damaged what has been an historic traditional right of the common people. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the desire in all that we did, or attempted to do before this Bill was produced. Had it not been for the finance expended by the Forestry Commission for a number of years, I am certain that there would have been a Bill long since, despite what the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch said about the magnificent administration of the historic verderers, since they have been literally bankrupt for a long time and could not have done the kind of work that has been done over a long period by the Forestry Commission.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Having made that assertion, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us details of the work done?

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows of that without my giving him details here, since the history of the contribution made by the Forestry Commission is well known not only to himself but to all those associated locally with the New Forest.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again? He has made a grave statement—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, because it impinges on all the verderers have done. Apart from the 1937 conference, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, has any money been spent by the Forestry Commission on the open forest?

Mr. Williams: The Forestry Commission of their own volition have been spending money annually for quite a time. The hon. and gallant Member knows that while there was no statutory obligation either on the Forestry Commission, or for that matter on anyone, the Commission have dealt with drains, the clearance of scrub, and so forth, for quite a period. Clause 11 is only imported into this Bill to make that a statutory obligation for, I hope, all time. In any case, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, stated that since this is an area where not only commoners are interested but the whole nation to a minor extent, since tens of thousands of people enjoy the open moors, it is not unreasonable that the Government should make a financial contribution in some form to the maintenance of the amenities, and Clause 11 is designed to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman referred particularly to Clause 14 under which there is a possible enclosure with the assent of the verderers. That apparently still does not satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch who, I am sure, never would be satisfied even if we gave him the moon. The right hon. Gentleman said that when ploughing up areas of land or carrying out experimental reseeding programmes we must be careful. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have been experimenting with the reseeding of commons for 10 years, almost always with success. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member will consult their colleague the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), he will be able to tell them about the various successes in experimental reseeding, not only in the New Forest but in various other parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Newbury, writing in "Country Life" on 26th August last, illustrates the value of what the county agricultural executive committee has done in the New Forest, where, thanks to the verderers not having had the wherewithal to perform their duties if these were their duties—I am not suggesting any lack of enterprise or lack of desire on their part to do the job—large areas which were of no use to man, horse, or any other animal were taken over by the agricultural executive committee. After illustrating


the useless scrub, this issue of "Country Life" which I hold in my hand gives a picture of the first result of reseeding, then the first crop of oats, then the scene after reseeding. There, on two sides of one article contributed by the hon. Member for Newbury, is the full story of what has been done, and I recommend the hon. and gallant Member to consult his hon. Friend if he wants knowledge of the potential value of cultivation and reseeding.

Mr. Stubbs: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman apologise?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hope I made it quite clear that some of these agricultural experiments had done well.

Mr. Stubbs: The hon. and gallant Member did not say that.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think I did; if not, I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Williams: indicated assent.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman has nodded his head, and he is as good a judge as anybody. However, is he aware that 300 acres which he took over has cost his Department £6,000, and does he consider that good management?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. and gallant Member asks me what any particular experiment has cost, I tell him readily that I cannot offhand say what any part of an experimental scheme has cost. However, when the hon. and gallant Member suggests that some scheme may have cost £6,000, I wonder if he has looked at only one side of the balance sheet?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No, both sides.

Mr. Williams: I imagine that must be the case—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is what the Minister's own experts say.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has looked at the cost but he has not looked at the potential income, and certainly has not paid any attention to the possibility of a heavier carrying capacity of animals of various kinds after reseeding had been undertaken.

However, I am quite certain that Clause 14 will be used with the assent of the verderers for experimental purposes exclusively in the interests of the commoners. The Ministry of Agriculture has no other object in view than to render many acres capable of carrying more ponies or cattle; in other words, continuing what they did during the war by removing the useless scrub, taking a good harvest of oats, of potatoes, reseeding, and leaving the land in a much better state for the commoners than it was in before. That could be the only object which any Ministry of Agriculture could have in mind.
And so with the Forestry Commission, I am sorry that, even after all the concessions that have been made to try to make this an acceptable Bill, the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch still seems to regard the Forestry Commission as a body of Pitts who want to enclose the New Forest for their private use just as enclosures happened 150 or 200 years ago. The hon. and gallant Member should remember that the Forestry Commission is a body of civil servants acting for the State, not for themselves, who want to grow timber on land useless for anything else. They want to make better use of our national assets than has been made before, and instead of condemnation I should have thought that would have merited praise. Whether it be actually 5,000 acres that can fit fairly into the scheme of things without destroying the amenities of the Forest. I am unable to say.
Therefore, in Clause 12 we say that if the Forestry Commission make a presentment—and it literally means the assent of the verderers within a certain area—a maximum of 5,000 acres shall he enclosed for afforestation. What can there be wrong in that? If there is an area of land which is rendering no contribution to the State or to the commoners, but can render a contribution to the growth of timber, then, surely, the Forestry Commission are the right body to determine whether or not that land is suitable for timber. I should have thought that by now, after all the conflicts from 1877, 1879 and onwards, the hon. and gallant Member himself would have been longing for a period of reasonable compromise such as he has had during the past few months, and not the


sort of suggestions he has been making in his speech today. We have gone as far as any Government could be expected to go. Perhaps, in our efforts at sweet reasonableness and compromise, we have gone a little too far, but it is clear that nothing we could do would satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton) asked about the enclosure of roads in the interests of safety. In Clause 16 we have taken power to enclose the main trunk road, which cuts across a corner of the forest rather than through the middle of it, and only by that means, with appropriate high fences or something lower down, will it be possible for animals to roam from one portion of the forest to another without endangering either human or animal life.
My hon. Friend asked another question about a special verderer being appointed to represent the Nature Conservancy. The Select Committee, following their first discussion in another place, had that proposal before them and turned it down, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it always was the intention of the Forestry Commission to co-operate with the Nature Conservancy to ensure that scientific investigation and so forth can be carried on. Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows, one of the verderers must represent some organisation representing amenities; and the Ministry can designate that particular verderer. I assure my hon. Friend that, with the power of the Minister to appoint that particular verderer representing amenities, and with the undertaking of the Forestry Commission always to keep in close touch with the scientific position, wild life in the New Forest will be cared for after the passing of the Bill.
There were not any further points to which I need reply, but I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch will feel that he has had his fling. Perhaps, quite rightly, he felt that with the tradition and history behind him, dating back to the days of his father, grandfather and all the rest, he must be the last person not to put up a struggle for the New Forest—a feeling that the Forest belonged to him. I

have made no complaints but, having gone so far, having compromised so readily and having conceded 99¾ per cent. of all that has been asked for, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not delay the Bill further or even expect to secure more concessions than he has already obtained.
The Bill, representing as it does only a tiny corner of Britain, is of some importance. Tens of thousands of people delight to pay visits to the New Forest and to enjoy the luxury of its fresh air. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why I thought it was necessary to change the appointment of verderers and to appoint one each representing the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning since, as he said, these representatives could render no contribution to the verderers. I can only say that I beg to differ from the hon. and gallant Member. The person chosen to represent agriculture will be the sort of person who can advise the verderers on things which they do not themselves understand; who can advise them where it will be wise or not to undertake reseeding or any other agricultural function. The person so appointed might, in fact, be better able to advise and guide the verderers because of his scientific knowledge which they, perhaps, may not possess.
Similarly, with the representative of the Forestry Commission. If an area is under consideration for afforestation, surely the person deeply saturated in the science of silviculture ought to be able to be of valuable assistance to the verderers, In future the verderers, with their appointed chairman and the persons representing the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and, perhaps, amenities, and with the five elected verderers, will be a far better body than the traditional verderers who, for one reason or another, were unable very often to do the job that all of us would have liked them to do on a comprehensive scale.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Are the appointed verderers likely to be resident locally or may they come from any part of the United Kingdom? Will they have special local knowledge or not?

Mr. Williams: I could not say where the person who is to represent the Ministry of Agriculture would actually reside. He would, however, be appointed because of his expert knowledge of agriculture, and not because of geography or the place where he happened to live. Similarly, the representative of the Forestry Commission will be appointed because, perhaps, of his scientific knowledge of silviculture; that, and not his actual place of residence, will be the basis of his appointment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, four to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection:

Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the sixth day after this day to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House:

Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House, and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions:

Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Orders of the Day — NEW FOREST [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as respects the New Forest in the county of Southampton, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act;
(b) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part I of the

Local Government Act, 1948, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session conferring functions on a highway authority other than the Minister of Transport;
(c) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session involving payments out of the Road Fund;

and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries thereunder in so far as they accrue under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to enclosures for cultivation and improvement of grazing."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not want to delay the Committee, but I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about the sum of £1,500 a year. Perhaps it would be convenient for him now to answer.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sorry that I omitted to answer that question. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at the top of page iv of the Financial Memorandum, he will find that it reads as follows:
The additional cost of maintenance of the Forest as provided in Clause 11; estimated at an average of £1,500 per annum. Some of the work is already carried out by the Forestry Commissioners as part of the normal management of the Forest, the cost being met out of the Forestry Fund.
The point about the £1,500 is that it is purely an estimate, as it must be. It may well be that in some future year when, perhaps, a large drainage undertaking might be carried out, the cost might be double this figure or even more. This is an estimated rather than an actual figure, since in a matter of this kind nobody can get nearer than an estimate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As it was part of my question, may I ask why in evidence in another place—and it was not challenged—the average cost was given as £3,000 a year? How is it it now appears as £1,500 a year? I do not see where the 50 per cent. cut has taken place, or for what reason.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member cannot have read the words I have just quoted. This is an estimated additional cost.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has understood me. In another place evidence was given that the additional cost, exactly on


the same basis as this, would be an average of £3,000 a year and the right hon. Gentleman is now putting in this memorandum £1,500 a year. I should like to know how the difference arose.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member must know that the Forestry Commission have been spending £2,000 or £3,000 per annum. This £1,500 is additional to £2,000 or £3,000 per annum and not a reduction, and therefore it is not

£1,500, but may well be £3,500, or even more.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Adjourned accordingl, at Twelve Minutes past Five o'Clock.